You are on page 1of 4

LETTER Evidence Excluding the Root of the Tree of Life from the Actinobacteria

Jacqueline A. Servin,* Craig W. Herbold,* Ryan G. Skophammer, and James A. Lake*1

*Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles; UCLA Astrobiology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles; Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles; and Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles The Actinobacteria are found in aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout the world and are among the most morphologically varied prokaryotes. They manufacture unusual compounds, utilize novel metabolic pathways, and contain unique genes. This diversity may suggest that the root of the tree of life could be within the Actinobacteria, although there is little or no convincing evidence for such a root. Here, using gene insertions and deletions found in the DNA gyrase, GyrA, and in the paralogous DNA topoisomerase, ParC, we present evidence that the root of life is outside the Actinobacteria.

Introduction The Actinobacteria, among the most morphologically diverse prokaryotes, are widely distributed in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Embley and Stackebrandt 1994). Actinobacteria employ varied metabolic mechanisms, although no photosynthetic members are known. They are primarily chemoheterotrophs, which either respire or ferment. Their oxygen tolerances vary from strictly aerobic, to facultatively anaerobic, to microaerophilic, or to strictly anaerobic. In addition to utilizing some unique biochemical pathways not found in other prokaryotes, they also synthesize many macromolecules absent from other organisms, such as unique cell wall peptidoglycans (Gokhale et al. 2007). Given their diverse morphological and biochemical repertoires (Embley and Stackebrandt 1994; Boone and Castenholz 2001; Garrity and Holt 2001), properties that might indicate a deep placement in the tree of life, we investigate whether the root of life is contained within the Actinobacteria. Here, we use top-down rooting to probe the origins of the Actinobacteria. This method analyzes indels, inserts and deletions, that are present in ingroup genes but are absent in some or all paralogous outgroup genes. Indel-based rooting methods are related to traditional methods of sequence-based rooting (Dayhoff and Schwartz 1980; Gogarten et al. 1989; Iwabe et al. 1989) but exclude roots rather than directly reconstructing rooted trees (Rivera and Lake 1992; Baldauf and Palmer 1993; Lake et al. 2007). We apply the method to all available Actinobacterial, double-membrane prokaryotic, Firmicute, and Archaeal sequences. Together these 4 groups represent all known prokaryotic life (Boone and Castenholz 2001). Archaea are primarily extremophiles and include many hyperthermophiles; Firmicutes, formerly named the low-GC gram positives, contain organisms like clostridia and bacilli; and double-membrane prokaryotes are a speciose,
1 Present address: 232 Boyer Hall, 611 South Young Drive, University of California, Los Angeles. Key words: tree of life, root, indels, cenancestor, Actinobacteria, prokaryotes.

Mol. Biol. Evol. 25(1):14. 2008 doi:10.1093/molbev/msm249 Advance Access publication November 13, 2007 The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail:

possibly primitively photosynthetic taxon exclusively containing all prokaryotes surrounded by double membranes. Top-down rooting has provided evidence for excluding the root from all but 4 regions of the tree of life (Skophammer et al. 2006; Lake et al. 2007; Skophammer et al. 2007). The 4 remaining locations are 1) on the branch leading to the double-membrane prokaryotes; 2) on the branch leading to the Actinobacteria; 3) on the branch leading to the clade of the Firmicutes and the Archaea; and 4) within the Actinobacteria. Applying top-down rooting to an indel present in the type II DNA topoisomerase (GyrA) (Gupta 1998) and to the paralogous topoisomerase IV (ParC) (Champoux 2001), we provide evidence that the root of the tree of life is excluded from within the Actinobacteria and, thereby, reduce the number of possible locations for the cenancestral root. DNA topoisomerases are essential in eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. They serve to relieve the topological strains encountered by a cell during replication, transcription, recombination, and chromatin remodeling. Type II DNA topoisomerases introduce double-strand breaks and are adenosine triphosphate dependent. Type II DNA topoisomerases are further subdivided into type IIA found in all domains of life and type IIB topoisomerases found only in Archaea. Gyrase and topoIV are welldocumented paralogs in the Topo IIA family and exhibit extensive sequence similarity (Champoux 2001). The prokaryotic homologs of gyrase and topoIV are heterotetramers. Gyrase contains 4 subunits, 2 each of GyrA and GyrB. These are homologous to the 2 subunits of topoIV, ParC, and ParE, respectively. Gyrase genes are ubiquitous, whereas topoIV genes are present within the Eubacteria but missing in the Archaea. Upon comparing alignments of GyrA and ParC sequences, we conrmed that a 4 amino acid GyrA insert (Gupta 1998) is present in Actinobacterial gyrase sequences, between orthologous Escherchia coli positions 204 and 205 and absent in all other prokaryotic gyrase sequences. We report that this insert is missing in all eubacterial ParC sequences (ParC is absent in the Archaea) and analyze this information using top-down rooting. Representative sequences of these root-informative genes are summarized in table 1, and complete alignments of nearly 500 GyrA and ParC sequences are included in the supplementary

Downloaded from by guest on November 22, 2011

Servin et al.

Table 1 Summary of the GyrA/ParC Indel

NOTE.A summary of GyrA and ParC alignments within the NGSSG/GPDFPT region corresponding to Escherichia coli residues 167217 in the outgroup ParC sequence. Alignments of individual GyrA and ParC sequences are available in tables S1A and S1B of the supplementary analyses and data (Supplementary Material online).

Downloaded from by guest on November 22, 2011

analyses and data, sections S1 and S2 (Supplementary Material online), respectively. Our rooting analyses are summarized in gure 1. For 4 taxa, there are 9 possible trees, corresponding to 4 crown groups, 4 stem groups, and 1 internal branch. The most parsimonious rooted trees for each of the 9 possible rootings are shown in gure 1. Note that the leaves of the unrooted trees are divided into 2 separate regions because the groups corresponding to the Actinobacteria (A), the double-membrane prokaryotes (D), the Firmicutes (F), and the Archaea (R) represent higher level phylogenetic clades rather than single sequences. Thus, the roots within the distal portions of the leaves (roots 1, 2, 8, and 9) are shown as 2 lines to represent the branching within these crown groups. The proximal portions of the leaves correspond to roots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. As shown by the large X in gure 1, the least parsimonious rooted treeroot 2,within the Actinobacteriarequires 3 changes, whereas roots 1 and 39 require only 2 changes. Others have suggested that GyrA has been transferred into the Archaea (Gadelle et al. 2003). Hence our rooting calculations assume the Archaeal GyrA genes are missing and uniformly eliminate root 2the Actinobacterial root (for analyses, see supplementary sections S3 and S4, Supplementary Material online). Comparisons of indel distributions with GyrA gene trees showed no evidence for indel homoplasy (supplementary section S5, Supplementary Material online). Analyses of GyrA and ParC indel anking sequences provide signicant statistical support, P , 0.015, for excluding the root from the Actinobacteria (supplementary section S2, Supplementary Material online). Together these tests provide strong evidence for excluding an Actinobacterial root. Previous analyses of directed indels have excluded roots within the double-membrane prokaryotes, within the Archaea, on the segment connecting the eukaryotes to the double-membrane prokaryotes, on the segment connecting the eukaryotes to the Archaea and within the FirmicuteArchaealeukaryotic clade (Skophammer et al. 2006; Lake et al. 2007; Skophammer et al. 2007). These excluded roots, plus the results presented here excluding

FIG. 1.A top-down rooting analysis of the excluded roots for the GyrA/ParC indel set. The following taxa are analyzed: the doublemembrane prokaryotes (D or D#); the Actinobacteria (A or A#); the Firmicutes (F or F#); and the Archaea (R or R#). The character states corresponding to taxa D, A, F, and R for gene GyrA are , , , and , and the character states corresponding to taxa D#, A#, F#, and R# for gene ParC are , , , and m, where , , and m correspond to insert absent, insert present, and gene missing, respectively. Filled rectangles represent an indel character state change, outlined rectangles represent gene deletions or insertions, and vertically striped rectangles represent gene duplications. Indel state changes, gene deletions and insertions, and gene duplications are weighted equally. The roots are numbered 19 as described in the text. Roots 1 and 39 are most parsimonious and correspond to 2 changes. Root 2 is least parsimonious, as indicated by the large X across the tree, and corresponds to 3 changes. In some cases alternative, but equally parsimonious, locations for character state changes exist (data not shown).

The Root of the Tree of Life Is Outside the Actinobacteria 3

(Gogarten et al. 1989; Iwabe et al. 1989). The 3 remaining roots are located on the branch (stem) leading to the doublemembrane prokaryotes, root 1, on the branch leading to the Actinobacteria, root 2, and on the branch leading to the Firmicute/Archaeal clade, root 3. We hope that future indels will facilitate further testing of these roots. Supplementary Material Supplementary analyses and data are available at Molecular Biology and Evolution online (http://www.mbe. Acknowledgments This study is supported by grants from National Science Foundation (NSF) and the University of California, Los Angeles, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology Institute to J.A.L. The authors J.A.S., C.W.H., and R.G.S. were supported by a Cell and Molecular Biology Training Grant from National Institutes of Health (NIH), a Genomic Interpretation and Analysis Training Grant from NIH, and an Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship training grant from NSF, respectively.

Downloaded from by guest on November 22, 2011

Literature Cited
Baldauf S, Palmer J. 1993. Animals and fungi are each others closest relatives: congruent evidence from multiple proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 90:1155811562. Boone D, Castenholz RW. 2001. The Archaea and the deep branching and phototrophic bacteria. New York: Springer. Cavalier-Smith T. 2006. Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses. Biol Direct. 1:1135. Champoux J. 2001. DNA topoisomerases: structure, function, and mechanism. Annu Rev Biochem. 70:369413. Dayhoff MO, Schwartz RM. 1980. Prokaryote evolution and the symbiotic origin of eukaryotes. In: Schwemmler W, Schenk HEA, editors. Endocytobiology: endosymbiosis and cell biology: a synthesis of recent research. Vol. 1. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Endosymbiosis and Cell Research, Tuebingen, West Germany, Apr, 1980. Xxiv1060p. Berlin (West Germany): Walter De Gruyter and Co. p. P63P84. Doolittle WF. 2000. The nature of the universal ancestor and the evolution of the proteome. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 10: 355358. Embley TM, Stackebrandt E. 1994. The molecular phylogeny and systematics of the Actinomycetes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 48:257289. Gadelle D, Filee J, Buhler C, Forterre P. 2003. Phylogenomics of type II DNA topoisomerases. Bioessays. 25:232242. Garrity G, Holt JG. 2001. The road map to the manual. In: Boone D, Castenholz RW, editors. Bergeys manual of systematic bacteriology. New York: Springer. Gogarten JP, Kibak H, Dittrich P, et al. (13 co-authors). 1989. Evolution of the vacuolar H-ATPaseimplications for the origin of eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 86: 66616665. Gokhale RS, Saxena P, Chopra T, Mohanty D. 2007. Versatile polyketide enzymatic machinery for the biosynthesis of complex mycobacterial lipids. Nat Prod Rep. 24:267277.

FIG. 2.A summary of the possible locations for the root of the prokaryotic tree of life, gure 2 top, and for the root of the prokaryotic/ eukaryotic ring of life, gure 2 bottom. The relevant 4 taxa representing known prokaryotic diversity are the double-membrane eubacteria (D), the Firmicutes (F), the Actinobacteria (A), and the Archaea (R). The eukaryotes (K) are present in gure 2, bottom. The 3 possible roots are numbered 1, 2, and 3. The traditional root is indicated by an X and the root within the double-membrane prokaryotes is indicated by an *. The regions from which the root is excluded are circled. They are labeled with the name of the relevant indel that excludes them and corresponds to the double-membrane prokaryotes (Lake et al. 2007), the Archaebacteria, and the Eukaryotes (Skophammer et al. 2006), the combined clade of the Firmicutes plus the Archaebacteria, (Skophammer et al. 2007), and the Actinobacteria, this study. The dots present on the distal portions of the leaves represent the last common ancestral populations (Doolittle 2000; Zhaxybayeva and Gogarten 2004) of the crown groups.

an Actinobacterial root, are summarized on the tree of life and on the ring of life in gure 2 top and bottom, respectively. Shown for reference are a root within the clade of double-membrane prokaryotes, *, based on transition analyses (Cavalier-Smith 2006) and the classical root based on sequence analyses of anciently duplicated gene paralogs, X,

Servin et al.

Gupta RS. 1998. Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: a reappraisal of evolutionary relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 62:14351491. Iwabe N, Kuma K, Hasegawa M, Osawa S, Miyata T. 1989. Evolutionary relationship of Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, and Eukaryotes inferred from phylogenetic trees of duplicated genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 86:93559359. Lake JA, Herbold CW, Rivera MC, Servin JA, Skophammer RG. 2007. Rooting the tree of life using non-ubiquitous genes. Mol Biol Evol. 23:17. Rivera MC, Lake JA. 1992. Evidence that eukaryotes and eocyte prokaryotes are immediate relatives. Science. 257: 7476.

Skophammer RG, Herbold CW, Rivera M, Servin JA, Lake JA. 2006. Evidence that the root of the tree of life is not within the Archaea. Mol Biol Evol. 23:14. Skophammer RG, Servin JA, Herbold CW, Lake JA. 2007. Evidence for a Gram positive, Eubacterial root of the tree of life. Mol Biol Evol. 24:18. Zhaxybayeva O, Gogarten JP. 2004. Cladogenesis, coalescence and the evolution of the three domains of life. Trends Genet. 20:182187.

Martin Embley, Associate Editor Accepted November 8, 2007

Downloaded from by guest on November 22, 2011